DIVORCE UNDER SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT

Earlier, marriages were initiated where the bride and the groom were unaware of their identity getting hitched to, as every decision was taken by their respective guardians and meeting of bride and the groom was not a custom that prevailed (however this was in the ancient times).Times have changed and every decision identifying with marriage is taken by the bride and groom themselves in this age of nuclear families and heightened individuality.

In India, the general audacious practice is that parents select the prospective bride/groom for their children from the same caste as theirs. Inter-caste marriage is as yet considered a taboo in many areas and strata in our nation. India still follows a very rigid structure of the caste system. Individuals are relied upon marrying within their caste and whoever marries out of their caste and 'challenges' the traditional obstructions are disregarded in the society either specifically or in a secretive way.

Things get outrageous in specific situations where the families take inter-case/ inter-religion marriage as a badge of eternal dishonor. The society has turned out to be numb to the expression "honor killings" which are reported every year. Unfortunately, the families take pride in indulging in such activities.

There came a grave requirement for a law to defend the interests of those individuals who need to go for inter-caste marriage. Accordingly, the Parliament enacted the Special Marriage Act, 1954 which accommodates for a special form of marriage, its registration, and divorce. A marriage between any two persons belonging to any religion or creed may be solemnized under this Act. Being a secular Act, it plays a key role in liberating individuals from customary requirements of marriage.

The Special Marriage Act ("SMA") is not worried about the religion of the individual aiming to get married. This applies to all parties who are registered under the SMA. The Act is not worried whether the marriage occurred between the people of same religion or between persons of a different religion.

Moreover, as stated earlier the Special Marriage Act not only governs the marriage but also governs divorce between the spouses of a different religion. Sec. 28 of the Special Marriage Act primarily deals with the provisions relating to obtaining a divorce by mutual consent in respect of a marriage solemnized and/or registered under the Act, a petition for divorce by mutual consent may be presented to the District Court.

Important points to be noted- A few key points to be considered while seeking a divorce by mutual consent are as follows:

1. A petition for divorce must be presented to the District Court by both parties together.

2. The petition must be on the grounds,

•    That they have been living separately for a period of one year or more,

That they have not possessed the capacity to live together. But, in cases where the court is of the view that the petitioner has suffered endured outstanding or the respondent has demonstrated immorality on their part, a petition for divorce would be maintained, but if any misrepresentation is found on the part of the petitioner to apply for divorce before the expiry of 1 yr, the court may if any order has been passed, state the order to take effect only after the expiry of 1 yr, as mentioned in Sec. 29 of the SMA Act, and

•    That they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.

3. The petition may be presented only after one year from the date of entering the certificate of marriage in the Marriage Certificate Book. However, relaxation may be provided in cases where exceptional hardship is suffered by the petitioner or in cases of exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent.

4. The petition seeking divorce by mutual consent could be presented to a District Court, within whose jurisdiction, either,

•    The marriage was solemnized,

•    The respondent resides, or

•    In case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing,

•    The parties to the marriage last resided together, or

•    The petitioner resides, in cases where the respondent is residing outside the territories to which the Act extends.

5. Between 6 months after, and within 18 months of, the date of presentation of the petition seeking divorce by mutual consent, both parties must make a motion together seeking a grant of a decree of divorce.

6. Before passing a decree of divorce, the District Court considers the following, among other aspects:

•    That the petition has not been withdrawn yet,

•    That a marriage has been solemnized under the Act,

•    That the averments in the petition are true,

•    That consent for divorce has not been obtained by force, fraud or undue influence,

•    That there has not been any needless or improper delay in instituting the proceedings.

Thus, for obtaining a divorce by mutual consent under the Special Marriage Act the above-mentioned provisions and the procedure must be fulfilled by the spouses.

Provisions relating to Alimony pendente lite, permanent alimony, and maintenance:

Parties desirous of obtaining a divorce by mutual consent must, however, keep in mind that the Act also contains provisions dealing with a grant of alimony and maintenance, both permanent and during the pendency of the proceedings. In the cases of divorce by mutual consent, the parties may agree to the terms relating to payment of alimony or maintenance and the same may be incorporated in the pleadings before the Court. However, care has to be taken that suitable provisions are incorporated in the pleadings to avoid future misunderstandings or litigation. It is therefore advisable that, while discussing the various issues connected with seeking a divorce by mutual consent with their advocates, the parties must specifically discuss their arrangement and agreement on alimony and maintenance, and take suitable steps to ensure that their interest is safeguarded.

Documents needed

•    Notice duly filled and signed by both the parties;

•    Affidavit declaring that all the conditions have been fulfilled (your age, no living spouse etc);

•    Residence, DOB & ID;

•    Passport size;

•   Copy of divorce decree/order in case of a divorcee and death certificate of spouse in case of widow/widower, and

•    In case of a foreign national, a no-objection certificate from the concerned Embassy regarding his / her present status.

For further legal query relating to divorce or if you are in need of topmost divorce attorney then you can reach out to Legalresolved which is an online platform where you can find solutions to your legal queries, contact lawyers for legal aid, and manage appointments with the best and top most divorce lawyers in your city.

MORE FORCED PATRIOTISM IN CINEMA HALLS

At a time when fundamentalists are shoving patriotism down people’s throats, which is no less than anarchy camouflaged as nationalism, the Supreme Court has reined in a part of it by stating that there is no need to stand up at cinemas while playing the National Anthem. In the Court’s own terms, an Indian need not “wear his patriotism on his sleeve". The Court criticized in severe terms the moral policing being unleashed in the society, expressing concern over the situation stating that one day this could come to “people should not wear t-shirts and shorts to movies because it will amount to disrespect to the National Anthem”. The Court’s liberal stand is laudable in the context of branding anyone with a difference of opinion as “anti-national” and requiring them to “go to Pakistan”.

The Supreme Court had held in November 2016 that national Anthem must be played in all cinema halls prior to the show, which was now challenged before the Court in a petition filed by Kodungalloor Film Society in Kerala. The Govt. supported the Order stating that it promotes unity among the people of diverse cultures, citing that it would encourage the audience to feel they are “all Indians”.

The liberal stand was adopted vehemently by J. Chandrachud, who countered every aspect of the Govt.’s pleas that suggested that the Court enforce force patriotism in the garb of Art.51-A (a) of the Constitution, requiring citizens to respect the National Flag and the National Anthem. The Court stated that it is for the Govt. which also had the power, to take the call to enforce such duties, and not that of the Court. J. Chandrachud referred to the Flag Code and observed that there was no mandate requiring people to stand up at the National Anthem being sung at a cinema hall.

The Govt. finally decided to take the call and the Court left it to the Govt.’s discretion to bring out a Notification stating whether or not it is mandatory to play the National Anthem at cinema halls. The case was heard by Hon’ble CJ Dipak Misra, J. Chandrachud and J. Khanwilkar, and has been posted for next hearing in January 2018.

Such a decision comes as a bold reinstatement of the Constitutional provisions that profess freedom of the citizens rather than a forced sense of patriotism, which is today widely used to promote political agenda of bringing out communal divisions, while making it look like the opinionated citizen is betraying the Country. 

Indian Kanoon in Bangalore

Get expert legal advice and guidance on Indian Kanoon Bangalore related to Divorce Law, Property Law, Criminal Law, Consumer Court, Muslim Law and Labor Law in India. Awareness of law is the key to securing justice and ensuring that none of your rights have been infringed. To claim what is yours, you primarily need to know what is rightfully yours. Boost up your legal quotient by reading informative articles and news only at Legal Resolved.

The spread of the Internet, considered independent from anyone else, isn't an essential purpose behind the present hunger for law in India, in my view. People here in India are nor much aware about Law so they need to have knowledge regarding Law, so Indian Kanoon Bangalore helps you get the best advice. Membership based legitimate Websites have been around for some time in India, but since the emergence of Indian Kanoon Bangalore, the compensation dividers that they raised, none of them has possessed the capacity to produce a solid client base.

v  Key Description:

·         While the open idea of the Internet made it simple to go up against these suppliers, the accessibility of lawful data complimentary — not the only accessibility of the Internet — has expelled immense obstructions, both to new companies, and Indian Kanoon Bangalore to access by the general population.

·         The second significant purpose behind this hunger for legitimate data — and for the movement development to Indian Kanoon Bangalore— lies in mechanical progression.

·         Government sites and even private legitimate data suppliers in India are, by and large, innovatively lacking.

·         To give access to law archives, Indian Kanoon Bangalore ordinarily have offered interfaces that are insignificant copies of the library world.

·         For instance, our Supreme Court site permits looking for judgments by a solicitor, respondent, case number, and so on.

·         While attorneys are regularly usual to utilizing these interfaces, and obviously comprehend these specialized lawful terms ,Indian Kanoon Bangalore requiring earlier learning of this sort of specialized lawful data as an essential for playing out a hunt raises a major obstruction to access by average citizens.

·         Further, the free-content web crawlers given by Indian kanoon Bangalore have no idea of significance.

·          So while the innovation world has essentially progressed in the zones of content pursuit and significance, government-based — and, to some degree, private, expense based — legitimate assets in India have stayed attached to stone-age innovation.

·         Enabling clients to attempt and test any pursuit terms that they have as a main priority, and giving a pertinent arrangement of connections because of their questions, fundamentally lessens the requirement for clients at Indian Kanoon Bangalore to comprehend specialized lawful data as an essential for perusing and appreciating the tradition that must be adhered to.

·         In this way, general, I think progresses in innovation, some of which have been presented by Indian Kanoon Bangalore, are in charge of cultivating a want to peruse the law, and for managing more individuals’ access to the lawful assets of India.

v  Statutory Law References

·         Hindu Marriage Act

·         Contract Act

·         Muslim Law

·         Constitution

·         Negotiable Instrument Act

·         Company Laws

v  Landmark Judgments

·         Gian Singh vs State of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012, Supreme Court of India.

·         Santosh Devi vs National Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors on 23 April, 2012, Supreme Court of India.

·         State Of Punjab vs Dalbir Singh on 1 February, 2012, Supreme Court of India.

·         M/S Topman Exports vs Commr Of Income Tax,Mumbai on 8 February, 2012, Supreme Court of India.

v  Important Do(s) and Don’t(s)

·         User Friendly.

·         Easy to access.

·         No extra Cost.

·         Provides all necessary information.